A person once wrote a strong defence of necrophilia in a pit thread, and as a result was suspected to be into it himself, but dissapeared in quick order. An overt “dog lover” once advocated bestiality in GQ (though personnally I’m not sure what all the fuss is about regarding bestiality, I mention it since many people see this as a very very bad thing).
I don’t think it’s very honest to associate ** Aldebaran ** (whose banning I still regret) with Al Quaeda in any way, shape and form.
He had a strong stance, that didn’t fit well in a majorly american and otherwise 100% western board, but would be quite lame in many an islamic (non-extremist) board I visited. He offered another perspective, and certainly with more restraint than some posters have displayed in the past regarding the arab world or Islam. He was IMO an asset for this board, regardless how irritated some people were by his anti-american stance. IMO we’re sorely lacking representants of other cultures and points of view here (it’s my primary issue with this board, actually) and his departure was a loss. If we had arabic posters aplenty here my point of view could be different, but we don’t.
In an abortion discussion there was mention of whether ‘birth’ was a clear line for deciding when a right to life would begin. In the course of this, someone mentioned that some people, indeed, believe that parents have an absolute right to kill their own children (i.e. even several years old). Now, the poster wasn’t actually advocating this, they were merely mentioning the existence of this viewpoint. I don’t think there has ever been anyone here who did argue for it.
Yes, there has. I can’t cite the thread, but I’m 100% certain.
Any orgone-ists?
I had a Cydonia/intelligent civilization on Mars/Richard Hogaland nut post on my board once. I don’t think I’ve seen that here on the SDMB.
Nah, it would just be hopeless to try and get a serious discussion on the subject on a predominantly American board. Been there, done that.
Really? Was he advocating a return to a hunter-gatherer society, or did he have another plan?
I could certainly argue in favour of a lowtech lifestyle, but the very act of doing so would pretty much smash my credibility.
Yeah, it’s the whole “sex with a nonconsenting partner” thing. Gets up some people’s goats. Stuckups.
I honestly wouldn’t recognize it if I saw it again. But I’m certain that position was argued by someone in at least one thread.
The First Rule of Project Mayhem is: You do not talk about Project Mayhem. 
Well, it’s not too surprising given the enlightened and liberal tilt of this board, but I’m pretty sure that no one here has ever advocated the missionary mission.
Has anybody here really advocated a Christian theocracy-type government?
I don’t think at its core Arab Nationalism is that different than what AQ is pushing. YMMV of course, and you are probably right about the Theocracy bit…I never got the impression he was all that married to a Theocracy or even (specifically) to Muslim law. And he would certainly differ from AQ on that point if nothing else.
In that case then no…I can’t think of anyone else who comes close to advocating AQ (APOLOGIZING for them perhaps, making excuses for them perhaps…but not full fledged advocation 
).
Perhaps not. Certainly I don’t think he advocated everything AQ stood for (like John’s point about the Theocracy)…but he DID advocate violence against America (though not against the entire Western World…another point of difference between Aldy and AQ), and he certainly advocated Arab Nationalism IMHO.
That said I agree with you…I regretted his banning as well. I wasn’t surprised mind you…but I was a bit sad when it happened. I actually kind of liked the guy when all was said and done.
-XT
His4ever did, if I’m not mistaken.
Ah, maybe so. I think I missed most of her tenure, and it seems we never interacted.
I seem to vaguely recall this, was it, perhaps, jmullaney that you are thinking of?
IANASatanist, but I’m pretty knowledgable about LaVey, and I think at one point outlined a few of his “beliefs”, as well as the histry and schism of the CoS in a not-negative way. They’re really a lot like Dopers: dedicated to irradicating ignorance They just think it’s OK to scare and mock people while they do it. Quite a bit like the inhabitants of the Pit, come to think of it.
So, if you want a position supporting CoS, I guess I’m your gal. Baby killing “Satanists”, you’ll have to keep looking. (If any even exist.)
I’m likely wrong on this, but in many animal-rights threads, I find myself defending the animal-rights viewpoint even though it’s one that I disagree with, simply because there’s nobody else advocating it, and there’s a lot of (what appears to me to be) misunderstanding about the viewpoint. Have we had folks on the board who advocated a Peter-Singeresque AR position?
About about any position in favor of targeting civilians for murder in order to achieve political change?
Daniel
I don’t think that that would be allowed by the mods. That was the sort of thing that I was thinking of when I included condition © in my OP.
Or any truly anti technology stance. They just wouldn’t be here, on a message board, on the internet, on a computer… Get the picture?
However. I have noticed in certain GD and Pit threads a profound bias in some people against technological progress. Or, certain technological advances. They always get shouted down by the hypocrisy of their promoting ANY anti technology stance on a message board, on the internet, on a computer… I love seeing those guys justify. Both sides.
However however, I see no real problem with bemoaning or disapproving of certain specific technologies, and doing so on a message board, etc…